Young v. Housing Authority Of Baltimore City

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 5 Motion of defendant to Dismiss Complaint, Or In The Alternative for Summary Judgment; denying 16 Motion of plaintiff for Leave to File a Surreply; Defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint by July 7. Signed by Judge Marvin J. Garbis on 6/22/2017. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
NADINE LEE YOUNG
Plaintiff
vs.

*
*
* CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-17-713

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
BALTIMORE CITY, ET AL.

*
*

*

*

Defendants
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: AMENDED COMPLAINT
The Court has before it Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Complaint, Or In The Alternative for Summary Judgment [ECF No.
5], Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply [ECF No.
16], and the materials submitted relating thereto.

The Court

finds that a hearing is unnecessary.
On March 15,1 Plaintiff Nadine Young filed the Complaint
[ECF No. 1] against Defendant Housing Authority of Baltimore
City (“Housing Authority”), alleging that she was a victim of
sexual abuse and harassment by a named supervisor, one Wade
Johnson.
On May 1, Housing Authority filed the pending Motion to
Dismiss, Or In The Alternative for Summary Judgment. On May 18,
Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 11] asserting the
All date references herein are to the year 2017 unless
otherwise indicated.
1

same claims against the supervisor personally, as well as adding
a new count against the supervisor.

On the same day, she filed

her response to the Housing Authority’s Motion [ECF No. 12].

On

July 2, Housing Authority filed its reply [ECF No. 15] to
Plaintiff’s response.

On June 8, Plaintiff filed the pending

motion seeking leave to file a surreply regarding the pending
dismissal motion. In essence, Plaintiff seeks to file a surreply
to, in effect, complete the briefing with regard to the validity
of the Amended Complaint.

The Court concludes, however, that it

will be preferable for all concerned to effectively restart the
case with the Amended Complaint. See Young v. City of Mount
Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (“As a general rule,
an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the original and
renders it of no legal effect.”).
Accordingly:
1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint, Or In The
Alternative for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 5] is DENIED AS
MOOT.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Surreply [ECF No.
16] is DENIED.
3. Defendants shall respond to the Amended Complaint by July
7.
SO ORDERED, this Thursday, June 22, 2017.
/s/__________
Marvin J. Garbis
United States District Judge
2